Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Could we, should we, bring the dinosaurs back?

Last week, I wrote an article about trout born from salmon parents. It's a bit of a nutty story - Japanese researchers injected germ cells from trout into salmon, which produced sperm and eggs (depending on whether they were male or female) that together produced baby trout. Although the parents were salmon, they still produced trout sperm and eggs.

One motivation for the research is that, at some point in the future, an extinct species could be brought back from the dead. Of course, you could only do this if you had previously frozen the germ cells of the species and if you have another closely related species to inject. The Japanese researchers were able to freeze the trout germ cells for 10 months, and say this could be extended indefinitely, in theory.

The technicalities of the research are covered in my article, but one thing I couldn't find room for was question of when is it too late to bring back extinct species. As Jean-Christophe Vié of the World Conservation Union points out, what's the point in bringing back a species if its environment is already ruined?

Taking this philosophical argument to the extreme, imagine you had dinosaur germ cells and a suitable host species. Would you bring the T. Rex back? My colleague reckons, yes, definitely, which I find a bit spooky. Perhaps this is just because I suspect he's right and if it were possible to bring the T. Rex back, à laJurassic Park, somebody out there would jump at the chance. What about the dodo?

What would be the point of resuscitating species that belongs to the past, other than to satisfy our curiosity? Various initiatives, namely Frozen Ark, set out to freeze tissue samples of threatened species to preserve their DNA. The director of Frozen Ark says the aim is to ensure this genetic information does not disappear forever. But he also recognises that it could become possible to use it to bring species back from the dead.

At what point should this be ruled out? When is a species so far gone that it no longer makes sense to bring it back?

Inevitably, I am brought back to Jean-Christophe Vié's point: bringing a species back is pointless if it cannot survive in the environment available to it - which is likely to be the case for many species that have disappeared.

What would be the point of resuscitating species that belongs to the past...

In what way does a T-Rex belong in the past? This implies that they went extinct due to fait, rather than extremely bad luck.

You could use the same argument to say that we shouldn't try to reintroduce species to their old environments - beavers to Scotland, say. Taking the argument further, you could say that a relatively low amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also a phenomenon which belongs in the past, and we shouldn't try to do anything about that either.

Personally speaking, I'd give my right arm to see T-Rexes living and breathing again.

I don't agree, Richard. I think it smacks of the arrogance that says we can manipulate our environment to suit ourselves. that is all very good if it is for survival of body or mind (artistic pleasure for example). I really don't see a lot of problem with re-populating areas because we have modified a species distribution in teh first place. But reviving a species is a different level. The danger comes when fadism takes over from scientific research. Imagine it - an 'ex-extinct pet of the month".

Remember, species are created by chance and until we stuck our bib in, were made extinct by chance - just as perhaps we will be too one day.

At the rate that species are disappearing today (i.e. Yangzte River Dolphin), I believe we should make a strong effort to bring back extinct species AND preserve the ones we have now. Think about this unique lonely planet we are on. This may be the only planet that harbors life. It wouldn't be a curiosity to just bring back an extinct creature, but a fight to preserve the continuance of life. It would be an amazing, and humbling experience to see the Wooly Mammoth roam the Earth again.

The dodo didn't become extinct because it wasn't fit, it was hunted to extinction.And just because a species becomes extinct now, doesn't mean that the environment couldn't be recreated and at that point the species reintroduced.

The only purpose for bring a t-rex back would be to have life imitate art though. I doubt it could be released into the wild anywhere without becoming a serious threat to humans and seriously damaging whatever existing ecosystem there was in that location. Mammoths however could probably be reintroduced and have a surviving relative that may be close enough to allow this technique to work.

Does anyone else ever think that once (if) we wipe every other species of this planet theres going to be just humans? what if theres no more evolution? purely because we slowly wipe everything out, dont allow for variation, and because we pollute and destroy so much that maybe we're physically destroying any chance of a new species ever existing? so maybe it's not too bad a plan to gain the opportunity to bring them back if we sort everything out again.i look back at all these creatures that we can only imagine what they lo0k like from their fossils and bones, and even though its taken millions of years worth of evolution to get to where we are today, i cant help but think we may have got to the final step for pretty much everything. that or its time for the insects to start growing, i swear i saw a Bumble Bee as big as a 50 pence piece a few weeks ago!

I love animals and dislike the way that human intervention is harming so many species, BUT:

To a CERTAIN extent, human expansion driving the extinction/evolution of other species is a natural phenomenon, the fact that we are sentient and concious of it dosn't change that. To a certain extent...

And, apart from the awe of seeing a creature that hasn't been around for a long time, what would be the point of bringing an extinct species back? There would be many different effects on whatever environment you intoduced them into, unless you kept them in a prepared environment, in which case you definitely are just doing it for our own amusement.

We should try hard to halt the dissappearance of species (such as the above mentioned yangtze dolphin) and if they dissappear MAYBE it might be ok to clone them back. But I think we should be really careful here.

thats assuming we'll need an eco-system.. otherwise why bother with Mars? where is this going? :)i just think it's an obvious fact that species are being wiped out because of humans (trees dont cut themselves down, houses don't build themselves) faster than they can evolve into more species .. and at that rate theres not going to be much left. its seems like its only good sense as a back-up to keep a revivable genetic database of these creatures just in case we do happen to notice we wiped them all out and they didnt just float off into space. otherwise the eco-system will collapse and we'll be weedy spaceship living hairless creatures colonizing balls of rock forever.

Saying what is and isn't evolution is pointless--humans are part of nature, and therefore, if we want to bring back a species, isn't nature then selecting that species? We should bring back whatever extinct species we want.

"What would be the point of resuscitating species that belongs to the past, other than to satisfy our curiosity?"

I think satisfying our curiosity would be a great reason to resurrect a dinosaur. I don?t think we should reintroduce them to the wild, but we could learn so much by studying living specimens, much more than we could learn by only looking at their DNA.

The whole point of resurrecting some species would not just be for the sake of curiosity, but for the sake of science, so you could get real data and study something that you have only been able to heretofore imagine. You wouldn't need a natural environment for such animals to live in. That's what zoos are for, to keep animals in that you look at. You create a bit of a fake ecosystem in the zoo where the animal can live.

I don't think the fact that we might actually manage to set foot their in the next 25 years means that we don't need an ecosystem if we intend to colonize the place. The first step would be a massive teraforming project that would involve the creation of an artificial biosphere and ecosystem.

In the course of the evolution of a complex system, introducing elements of an earlier stage into a later stage has a higher probability of becoming highly disruptive in the short run (few million years) and select somewhat new future paths in the long run.

I don't think it's arrogance to want to change the world. We're humans. It's what we do. For good or ill, we should strive to control nature as much as we can. Only when we embrace technology and innovation will we be able to transcend our state. Sounds like a bunch of hippy crap, but a transhuman future is the only future I'm interested in. This means experimenting and doing things just to see if they can be done.

Bringing back dinosaurs would help see how they lived and behaved, but the taint of raising them in captivity would cast doubt on the results. It would, though, answer many questions like how they were able to pump blood such great lengths and heights.

Then there's always the possibility of making a giant eight-legged chicken-saurus for commercial use by KFC.

I'd love to see dinosaurs come back, but in all honesty mammoths and other more recent extinctions would be far more likely to be able to be recreated using the salmon/trout technique.And if that's the case, then who'se to say that we couldn't do the same for Neanderthals.Now that'd be something to see.

For something like the dinosaur that we know little about, it doesn't matter if they could actually be restored to a viable living species, the ability to find out what they were really like would be invaluable.

What many people fail to see is that species that are now extinct may very well be able to be released into today's environment, and thrive. Whatever condition killed them off in the past has likely changed back, and forth in the environmental tug of war that this planet is constantly in. If the Dinosaurs were killed due to lack of sunlight (from an asteroid impact), then that condition does not currently exist. If animals were hunted to extinction by humans, then chances are they would survive today if we didn't hunt them.

screw u guys there was never evolution . mutation possible because there is lots of nuclear stuff in the world and if a thing ever mutated it wouldnt last longer than a few months.the extinct shouldnt come back to life because we can do it. look at us humans we are overpopulating there wont be any space for the extinct or the present creatures so we will just kill the revived creatures that is worse than leaving them dead. its like making a baby then shooting it in the head with a shotgun.

What are we doing!!!!!! Why are we playing god? First we kill the animals like the dodo... and then we try to bring it back? First we try to kill the environment and then try to fix it? Suppose the T-rex does come back, where are we going to put it? Scientist are most likely going to examine it, test it, experiment with it, and then kill it. Then make more, and then kill. What's the use. Scientists are people, not God.

1) we can't take care of the wild creatures we have.2) We would need to create a complelte food chain because of the predators' needs.3) I've kept/bred birds. they think really differently. I'm not so sure I'd like to be dealing with something like that with manipulating front paws rather than wings... think the velocirators in Jurassic Park 1.

Gods are people, not scientists. As a priest myself, I tend to favor the idea that even our highest ideals (aka gods) tend to manifest our best & worst characteristics (see Greek mythology for details; just don't get spinning rude yarns with Athena unless you really like spiders. Anyway, freewill (if we have it) makes us versimilar to our gods (if we have them), and we do manipulate our environments.Why not spawn dragons? Surely, after we finish exterminating ourselves, the great beasts of oldmaybe given a second chance to rule in our stead.

Since it would not truely be up to us as to if it gets done there is no point to fighting over if it is right or wrong to bring anything back. They just discovered that venom from a specific snake can help fight diabetes. So I say that if there is a reason to bringing anything back it should be to improve the quality of life. Even if it is only to test that it could improve the quality of life. One T-Rex in a lab/cage/zoo/horror film means very little if it has no reason for being there. Why would you bring a T-Rex back? Perhaps its brain tissue cures Alzheimer's. Won't know until we try. Why bring back the dodo? Easy, they taste better than chicken. Point is, fuming over something that you have no influence over is a waste of exsistance. Do me a favor, all of you, and go learn HOW to bring back thinks that were thought to be lost to us before you deside if it is ethical. Then and only then do you have the right to judge it. Doesn't matter what religion or lack there of you follow.

If it can be done then it will be done - simple as that. It's too big a carrot.

Less people, more dinosaurs ? not such a bad thing.

Personally I would prefer bringing back only animals that have died from Mans recklessness in destroying their habitat, but bringing back a dinosaur would potentially be profitable enough to fund the less exciting animal?s resurrection too.

Why not bring an extinct species back from the dead. I can see this being a gold mine for researchers. Think about what we could learn if we had a living, breathing T-rex, or any other extinct species, rather then studying a fossil. Perhaps we could unravel the mysteries of Humans ancient ancestors. Is it pointless to bring back a dino to release into the wild? Yes. Is it pointless to bring it back for research? No.

The carrying capacity of the Earth is finite. With most of our 6+ billion people struggling for the basic necessities how are we going to share the planet with a bunch of t-rexes? Bringing back a species that went extinct a decade ago is very different to bringing back a species that went extinct 64 million years ago - we are still learning new things about dinosaurs.

For our own well being, maybe we should appreciate many descendants of the dinosaurs around us ... and focus on helping the species that our lifestyles are driving to extinction. Look at what happened to the Thylacine! It is time we focus on preventing the preventable extinctions.

I think we should do everything in our power to keep the diversity of life on earth alive. And hell yeah I'd love to see T-rex running around somewhere (enclosed).Otherwise its going to end up being Us, Rats, Cockroaches and Pigeons.

This sounds exactly like the sort of problem some T-Rexs would be able to fix.

We need something to regulate our meddling selves. We move, take over that area and shape it for our needs while driving out all of the animals that used to live there.

We don't care about living in unison with other animals, we just care about ourselves and its sickening.

Some times I wonder if it wouldn't be best to get rid of all humans and let the other animals just live in peace. At least they won't destroy environments and pollute the earth at the enormous rate we do every day.

I'm sorry, but human beings are simply not smart enough nor wise enough to be messing about in the regeneration of species, regardless of how those species became extinct. Which is why we should be worrying about preserving as many as possible that we haven't already killed off.

I've no objection to storing germ plasm in a kind of DNA museum (although I can't explain why this would be beneficial; I guess I just like museums), but meddling is something we've proven ourselves to be profoundly bad at. We need to spend much more intellectual energy on mitigating the consequences of our actions, preventing further extinctions, and trying to maintain the environment we're presently adapted to.

everything that could be brought back should be, if merely for research and curiosity alone. We cant know what we'll learn from them until they're here. Does this mean reintroduction into the wild, no not unless a) it could survive and b) would serve some purpose along the food chain. I'm a big ecofreak, we should try to keep alive every living thing we have on the planet, but if they go extinct because of what we've done, would it just happen again?

BUt the descendants of neanderthals are around us now. Isn't the idea that they interbred with us at the fore at the moment? Anyway, I don't think long extinct animals should be brought back... yet. Instead of focusing on the good ol' T-Rex, the focus should be on bringing up endangered species to suitable levels, like lions and dolphins etc. Also, if this could be made commercially viable, instead of overfishing dwindling amounts of fish, we could breed them specially. By the way, this is not true cloning, whoever mentioned the word. it is more of the nature of dolly the sheep. And "Otherwise its going to end up being Us, Rats, Cockroaches and Pigeons." Isn't it interesting all these pests are the successful?

If we could ever recreate dino's, it would certainly not be by using their actual DNA. There isn't a single carbon atom of their DNA left in any fossil. What could eventually be possible is (once we understand the genetics of embryology) is change the hox-genes of their closest relatives (reptiles or birds), so the newly created animals RESEMBLE what we think they looked like. Though it would be very interesting, it could only partially be used to study them, since all the features they have, are features we gave them.

There's a simple answer for this. (Okay...it's clearly not simple, but let's just look directly at the very backbone of the idea).

You shouldn't return an extinct species where it cannot survive and where it would break down an ecosystem.

True, if we're talking tiny dinosaurs, or dodo's (if they could properly fit into a modern day ecosystem without destroying it...and we don't know everything, we can only test and guess unfortunately when it comes to ecosystems) then it's ... partially an acceptable idea.

When we discuss a mammoth or a T-Rex, or a smilodon species, what are we going to do, keep them in a zoo? We -could-, and I will admit the idea is absolutely exciting, but I'd have to vote for no here. We all like seeing animals and plants in their natural habitats, and I can't see a habitat or ecosystem supporting such large animals with a need for larger territories, more prey, and the obvious danger associated with a large predatory dinosaur of some sort killing every elephant in sight.

I also agree it's an arrogant assumption. We do nothing BUT manipulate environments to suit ourselves and of course we are trying to change that but at the same time, contradict ourselves in the process. What is best for the environment in the environment's eyes?

The reason that the dinasaurs went exctinct may differ- depending on what you believe but in any way their extinction is what allowed us to emerge and evolve.

It would be like taking poison out of a greenhouse, letting the plants grow, then putting the poison back in, if the dinasaurs got loose they would spread, causing damage that might not be able to be contained- ie a new kind of fish that eats all the food in an area, which kills off the whales food supply, which changes the whole ecosystem eventually!

Please be in agreement that we should leave the past alone- this is almost as bad as using a time machine to alter the future.

If you watch doctor who you will understand that the past can come back and bite you in the ass if its messed with!

I would like to see this thread continued since the Discover Channel ran a good show on bringing back the dinosaur manipulating the egg of a chicken.It is already being done. They have tricked the egg so that the tail remains long after the embroy grows. They are manipulating the beak and creating teeth. The scientist are working on changing the wings to arms and claws and feather to scales. Also working on the stomach, making the chicken a meat eater. As the host geologist Dr. Horner suggested he favors bringing the emu back since its size is relative to a raptor. He is eager to see an emusaurus!

yes, that's exactly the reason i posted here- notice the year (2007-2008) i would also like to keep it going because there must be other that have recently seen that show and now want to discuss it? I think it is an interesting debate that should be prolonged as long as it can be- not stopped without any reason at all.

I realy think that we should try a little bit with cloneing but not too much. if you like stargate (like me) then you should know about the asguard. they used cloneing to extend their lives over thousands of years, but in the process they eliminated many bodily functions with mistakes, which made them unable to reproduce and eventualy led to their mass suicide instead of dying from a accedental illness created in the cloneing process.

that is why i think that we should stick to useing cloneing only experimenaly

why not bring them back , germ cells can be found in living tissue of animals so im sure that there is a fossil that has some.the biggest problem would be the air , when the dinosaurs were alive there was twice as much oxygen to breath and that's one of the reasons that dinosaurs got so big. if a bird was used it should be a preditory bird such as a hawk or vulture. when a chicken embreo is only a couple days old it has sixteen verebre in it's tail but the verebre somehow dissapears when it hatches ,but i guess you could put the nutrient protein in the egg with some sort of needle in a very small amount, because protein can slow down the evolution process in an animal so that maybe the chicken would not loose those extra verebre and chickens that are still in their eggs have teeth but they loose them also when the chicks hatch but with the protein in the egg the chicken would keep the teeth and if it lives to be old enough to it had chicks the eggs might be more genetically like a dinosaur than the last and might grow in size. Generation after generation the chicks in the eggs might be more and more genetically processed like a dinosaur so years and years later we might have a complete dinosasaur.but keeping it alive is another story.the tempurature would have to be just right. Thats my opinion about dinosaurs, and how that we could revive them.

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some flyff penya . I do not know how to use the flyff money ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy flyff gold . We all love game, if you want to play it, please buy flyff penya and join us. Please do not hesitate to have cheap penya . It is funny.